Top 20 Light-Heavyweights of all time

I still remember how Ed Derian introduced him:

“Great Scott …

“Super Scott …

“JAMES SCOTT!!!”

 

No they couldn't and shouldn't necessarily.

and this is precisely what is wrong & INACCURATE with LISTS, especially achievement based lists.

one lists the supposed 'greatest' Champions in History, chopping and changing them based on wins & successes of then current fighters. this NEVER accounts for Era's, some just better than others, never accounts for all the great Contenders, who in many a case are equal to or Better than some said 'greats' and never accounts for said divisions best period/era in general.

so the problem is, someone pumps out a list of 10 or 15 or 25 or a 100 even, of supposed 'Greatest', Achievement Based, say of your 20, then you look at the list, even a Good One and you say well sure, there are at least 13 of them who are defo 'among' the Best Ever, but my God, dozens of great fighters in that division over HISTORY are easily better than those other 7 listed.

NEVER understood these futile always changing completely unrepresentative of Boxing HISTORY Lists.

Sorry not for me G i Joe, there are too, too many GREAT Fighters in Boxing, to be wrongly 'unlisted', but worst downgraded by lesser men, because they are rarely, if ever seen on such lists.

H2H IS the Only accurate lists and even they are damn difficult to be all inclusive... AMONG the Greatest Fighters is the most accurate way to view Boxers, achievement based lists are often ridiculous, i.e Fury, madness to accept or believe.

 

I do agree with the notion that achievement based lists are quite dumb, but I think that at certain times, we need men to have these achievements to be able to place them so highly- As they are otherwise somewhat unproven. If a man showcases the proper skill needed to beat these ATGs, we can't just put him up there immediately, we need to see more of what they're capable of. These super fights can and do change men's placement amongst the top level, and we can't properly gage them otherwise without such.

 

Not an oversight, I think he rates in the same company as his arch rival Rosenbloom, which would be either toward the bottom or just outside of a top 20 IMO.

No one will deny that Foster's resume leaves a lot to be desired, but his dominance & H2H capabilities can't simply be ignored either. Also, the manner in which he blasted out an iron-chinned Tiger (who I would probably rate in a top 30 LHW list) is nothing to sneeze @ either.

 

Don't necessarily disagree with your stance on Foster, but the slippery slope there is that this supposed head-to-head dominance is perceived by virtue of blowing out far lesser challengers. In essence, we don't really know what kind of dominance he'd have shown against better opposition. Finnegan extended and tested him of course, though by then he was a bit older. Still, 14 tough, tough rounds against a decent if not great challenger.

 

In LHW fights (under 180lbs, allowing for slightly over the weight non-title contests) JHL went 50-0-3, including 6-0 in world title fights during his 4-year reign.

He beat Maxie Rosenbloom x 2 (admittedly, also lost to him in fights contested above LHW), Tiger Jack Fox, Al Gainer x 2, Tony Shucco x 2, Bob Olin x 3, Bob Godwin, Jock McAvoy, Len Harvey, Lou Scozza & Fred Lenhart.

Unbeaten in fights contested at the weight & a win resume as fine as that, assuming fights contested at the weight is the sole criteria, he's a lock for the top 10, imo. In fact, he's top 5 for me.

 

Based solely on fights contested below 180lbs (& above MW, obviously) and excluding active fighters (not saying any would get in, just that I've not included any in my analysis):

1. Ezzard Charles
2. Harry Greb
3. Gene Tunney
4. Archie Moore
5. JHL
6. Michael Spinks
7. Bob Foster
8. Jimmy Bivins
9. Tommy Laughran
10. RJJ
11. Tommy Gibbons
12. Jack Delaney
13. Matthew Saad Muhammed
14. Harold Johnson
15. Lloyd Marshall
16. Kid Norfolk
17. Billy Conn
18. Victor Galindez
19. Joey Maxim
20. Jack Dillon

My criteria of only factoring in fights contested at the weight hurts some. e.g. I'd have Conn higher than many of those above him on a P4P list & I'd have Langford, whose work in fights contested at this range isn't enough to get him in the top 20, imo, above them all P4P based on fights contested at all weights.

 

I really enjoy your posts when you do deeper dives into someone’s resume at a particular weight. I do think both fighters should be in that realm (i.e. counting a middleweight win for Jake LaMotta vs. a welterweight who’s 150-ish) but regardless of that nitpick, your research lends some perspective and I appreciate that.

 

Yes agreed totally I think Foster came along at the perfect time when the division didn't have any stand out Light Heavyweights.

Don't get me wrong regarding eye test Foster's KO and power do look very impressive. But it's one thing doing against opposition like Kendall, Quarry, and then doing it against the likes of Conteh, Qawi, Spinks, Muhammad, Galindez, Johnson, etc who were in the era just after him and which would've told us alot more about his H2H ability.

I mean as you said Finnegan went 14 tough rounds with Foster. And Pourie who was a solid fighter but not a stand out Light Heavyweight went 15 rounds with Foster twice.

D*ck Tiger was a good win but Tiger was more known for his Middleweight feats and wasn't truly a Light Heavyweight he only weighed 168 pounds vs Foster.

 

Cheers Pat, much appreciated.

Establishing clear and consistent criteria is key if you're going to take rankings seriously. Not that there's anything wrong with doing them and not putting in hours of research and analysis, because there isn't.

To me, basing divisional rankings on fights contested in the weight divison you're ranking boxers at, made the most sense and the heavier man (obviously) determines what weight division the fight was contested at.

In your example, La Motta's fights vs guys weighing around the WW limit, contribute to the MW resume of both fighters, because the fights were contested at MW.

In La Motta's case, the size of his opponents is factored in to the significance of the wins and losses in those fights, in terms of how they contribute towards his standing at MW.

 

That seems like an overly restrictive & arbitrary set of rules that would actually undermine the accuracy of the rankings.

Why shouldn't Langford's & Fitz's capacities to KO much larger opponents while weighing well w/in the LHW limit themselves be taken into consideration when judging their capabilities as LHWs?

 

No reason, if their fights contested in the HW weight division contribute to how you rank them in the LHW division, that's your prerogative.

For me, they all count when ranking them P4P.

When ranking fighters all time in each weight division, I only considered contests fought in that weight division, with no one fight contributing to their record in more than a single weight division. That made the most sense to me, I wouldn't necessarily claim it be the most valid criteria, just the one that made the most sense to me.

But then, I'm ranking based strictly on my interpertation their records in each weight division, not on my interpretation of "their capabilities" (there's nothing wrong with the latter, just clarifying my criteria).

 

In this instance i think we have to allow a little bit of leeway for career stage. Foster was 11 1/2 years deep for Finnegan and another year on for Fourie. Foster was 53 fights deep even by the time he took on Finnegan and deeper for Fourie. He was past the ten defense stage fighting these guys.

The only time Fourie was ever stopped was when he suddenly, for some reason, popped up to Heavyweight and fought Gerrie Coetzee - at a 34 pound weight disadvantage. After the Foster loss Fourie actually took champ Victor Galindez 15 rounds twice in the same year. Fourie was extremely durable.

Finnegan>Ali>Fourie>Fourie>Ahumada were his last 5 fights before retiring (yeah he came back for a bit later) so Foster knew the magic was gone. Getting pole axed by Ali between Finnegan and Fourie fights would not have done him much good at that late career stage one would think.

In summing up i think his later straggles were at or around a time guys like Holmes and other great fighters started to struggle against lesser guys. I think an earlier Foster would have given a better account of himself but at the same time there's almost always a couple of guys on an ATG record where you just scratch your head and wonder why X had trouble with them or how they went the distance.

 

This is not a ranking, its in chronological order. There might be 100 fighters who have a case to be in the top 20.

Root
Dillon
Tommy Gibbons
Miske
Greb
Tunney
Loughran
Knight
John Henry Lewis
Conn
Archie Moore
Bivins
Maxim
Foster
Michael Spinks
Qawi
Hopkins
Roy Jones
Tarver
Beterbiev

I don't know why Langford is being considered when he jumped from MW to HW and the weight class didn't exist when he was around that size. Whats up with that?